MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986004030 · doi:10.1109/icmew.2012.109

Non-rigid 3D Model Retrieval Using Set of Local Statistical Features

2012· article· en· W1986004030 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yuki Ohkita, Yuya Ohishi, Takahiko Furuya, Ryutarou Ohbuchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Polygon (computer graphics)3d modelManifold (fluid mechanics)AlgorithmFeature (linguistics)Statistical modelArtificial intelligencePattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various algorithms for shape-based retrieval of non-rigid 3D models, with invariance to articulation and/or global deformation, have been developed. A majority of these algorithms assumes that 3D models have mathematically well-defined representations, e.g., closed, manifold mesh. These algorithms are thus not applicable to other types of shape models, for example, those defined as polygon soup. This paper proposes a 3D model retrieval algorithm that accepts diverse 3D shape representations and is is able to compare non-rigid 3D models. The algorithm employs a set of hundreds to thousands of 3D, statistical, local features to describe a 3D model. These features are integrated into a feature vector per 3D model by using bag-of-features approach for efficiency in comparing 3D models and for invariance against articulation and global deformation. Experimental evaluation showed that the algorithm performed well for non-rigid 3D model retrieval.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207